ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant

New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Posted by Nathan on 1 January 2000, 01:00 GMT

Sources at the U.S. Naval Observatory, the official time keepers for the United States of America, were perplexed to see that there was no roll over to the 21st century or the third millennium at 00:00:00 GMT. Insiders speculate that the new millennium was not Y2K compliant. Official statements have not been issued yet, but our sources are confident they can have the problem solved within a year: in time to roll over the century and millennium with 2001.

Okay, you have all heard about Y2K and the millennium. But maybe some of you don't know why people are saying the new millennium doesn't start until 2001.

The year-numbering system the Julian and Gregorian calendars use was invented in A.D. 562 by a Roman monk named Dennis the Short. Now, he obviously didn't have too much going for him as he couldn't come up with a better nickname than "the Short." He decided that, since Luke 3:1 from the Bible stated "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,...the word of God came onto John the son of Zacharias [John the Baptist, who announced the coming of Jesus], and Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age." He knew when the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (an old Roman emperor) was, so he decided that that year was anno Domini 30. That's also why some people complain that the year A.D. 2000 should have been around A.D. 1997 or so.

There are now two reasons that there is no year A.D. 0. The first is logical: if Jesus was born, that is the first year of our Lord or A.D. 1. The year before that was, of course, 1 B.C. The other reason is quite simply common sense: Dennis the Short was a Roman monk, and the Romans had no numeral zero, neither much of a concept of zero at all. So our friend Dennis could not have started at A.D. 0 because for him it could never have existed.

The staff of ticalc.org wishes you a safe and happy new year! :)

Update (Nick): Here's my explanation for exactly why the millennium doesn't start until 2001.
Think back to kindergarden, when you were taught to count numbers. What number did you start with? 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. and so on. You started with 1. Therefore, it's logical to assume the new millennium starts on 2001 as well.
Another way of thinking of it: The Julian calendar was invented by the Romans. As a result, Roman numerals were used to name years for a very long time (they still are in many cases, movies and TV shows instantly come to mind). What's the Roman numeral for zero?

 


The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.


Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Binky  Account Info
(Web Page)

First comment, millennium started in AD0. so this is the millennium, not 2001, like some of you believe.
-Sherman

     1 January 2000, 01:23 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Nathan Haines  Account Info
(Web Page)

I would LOVE to hear why you think there is a year A.D. 0. Please explain.

     1 January 2000, 01:29 GMT


Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Nick Chaves  Account Info
(Web Page)

I always believed that it is not until 2001 but the above explanation says A.D. 30 is when "Jesus began to be about 30 years of age." So that means when he was about 31 it would be A.D. 31. When he was 15 it was A.D. 15. When he was 32 it was A.D. 32. I know no one ever counted an A.D. 0, but what year was it when he was 6 months old? 1 B.C.??

If someone has an extremely logical answer to this, then tell me.

Nick Chaves

     2 January 2000, 01:14 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
ikecam  Account Info

Good question. But Jesus' age was counted on the Roman system, too, meaning that when they say 30, we should think of 29. So 29 years after his birth, he turned 29. I hope you understand what I mean.

     2 January 2000, 04:01 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
usaar33  Account Info

here's a logical answer:
the date is inaccurate anyway.....
many historians say he was born in 4 BC anyway, so your theory doesn't matter...

     2 January 2000, 06:06 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Adam Berlinsky-Schine  Account Info
(Web Page)

This is not an opinion question, it's a fact. I've been using BlueCalx's explaination when dealing with morons (aka my family) who keep insisting that this is the millennium. You count from 1 to 100, not 0 to 99. 2000 is just a nice round number, also known as Y2K or the Millenium (note the misspelling) - but it is not the next group of 1000 years. Gotta wait another year for that one.

     1 January 2000, 01:35 GMT


Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Magnus Hagander  Account Info
(Web Page)

I would recommend those who do not accept the fact that we are still 1 year from the change of the millennium to go visit a site like http://greenwich2000.co.uk/2001/. There are many others out there, I just thought I should point one of them out :-)

     1 January 2000, 02:11 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Bryan Tran  Account Info

yeah the millennium starts on 1/1/2001- in a year

btw look on pg. 414 of the paperback version of contact, written by carl sagan, i just finished reading it. in there it says by sagan himself that it's 2001 not 2000. you can't argue with someone like carl sagan

     1 January 2000, 02:13 GMT


Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
rabidcow
(Web Page)

didn't carl sagan die?
that would kinda make it hard to argue with him...

     1 January 2000, 05:15 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Keith Smith  Account Info

People had other calendar systems back then, so there is no exact way to tell now what and when the year was. But get real, there was no A.D. 0. That would mean that there was a B.C. 0.

     1 January 2000, 02:18 GMT


Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Vejita
(Web Page)

no it wouldn't

     1 January 2000, 03:09 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Chris Remo  Account Info
(Web Page)

Yes it would. 0AD and 0BC would be the same year. That's a paradox. It can't be both before and after at the same time....

     1 January 2000, 06:59 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
David Hess  Account Info

just so you know (which you probably already do) the a in ad does not stand for 'after' and the b in bc does not stand for 'before'. but you already knew that. peace out everybody happy 2000 (or whatever year it ACTUALLY is:)

     1 January 2000, 07:55 GMT

Y2KNOT
KAKE  Account Info
(Web Page)

you bring up and interesting point in that for many people around the world, this is /not/ the year 2000. actually, to me, it's year number 18. whoever sees this as their year 2000 must be reported to the white lab coat people immediatly, or, if in the immediate family, beaten roundly with a big carboard thing wide paper comes on. well, that lost it's punch. but still.

2K is /not/ important. obviously. it's no more important than 9<D*2>. or 49<*2>. or any other year i remember. in fact, 2K is going to suck in my opinion in that it /is/ the year 2K, and 2K has always sucked. <i don't like it, it doesn't work out well in hex>

so enough. it is late or early. see? no difference, no matter. so i will cease this pointless <clickity clickity> and go off to some place of more interest.

`nacht

-KAKE
IP "human life concluded on a single rainy afternoon..."

     1 January 2000, 12:19 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Robin Kay  Account Info
(Web Page)

You right on one count but not on the other...

BC = Before Christ
AD = Anno Domini (sp?) That is latin for "In the years of our Lord"

--Robin Kay--

     1 January 2000, 20:47 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
ikecam  Account Info

I second that, just for reinforcement's sake. I think you even got the spelling right.

     1 January 2000, 21:51 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Erich Oelschlegel  Account Info
(Web Page)

Actually, if you translate it correctly, the noun 'anno' is singular, meaning ONE, and the -i ending of the noun 'dominus' is a masculine genitive suffix. Simply put, 'anno domini' is best translated as "The Lord's Year" or "Year of the Lord."

~ferich

     2 January 2000, 05:14 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
BryanK  Account Info
(Web Page)

Isn't "anno" dative though? If it's in the second declension and it's not irregular then doesn't that mean it's "For the year of the Lord" or "To the year of the lord?"

Bryan
bryan_kam@usa.net
members.tripod.com/bryan.kam

     2 January 2000, 23:49 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Chris Remo  Account Info
(Web Page)

You're right that the A doesn't stand for after (Anno Domini), but the B does stand for before (Before Christ)

-chris

     2 January 2000, 05:56 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
FIFAREF99

unfortunately for you when the Monk Bede set up our calendar in the 5th century AD he set it up based on a fixed date. The year after this date was numbered 1. There was no year zero. It is illogical to think there was a year zero.

     1 January 2000, 04:01 GMT


Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
meingts Account Info

I prefer to think that that's the way things are, if that helps :)

     1 January 2000, 07:33 GMT


Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
tiprym  Account Info
(Web Page)

You're a dumbass.

First off, In the year 1AD(the start of the AD era), no one had a number zero. If no zero existed, how could the AD timeline start on 0 AD?
Second off, 0 is not a positive number, you little crack-smoking fudge packer. 0 is in the middle, neither positive or negative(except in C++ where it is a positive number but that was a glitch). So AD started with 1 and 0 was zero zero.
Third, THIS IS THE STORY OF HOW EVERYONE GOT F*CKED UP IN THE HEAD:
One day, some dumbass with a major popularity desire decided to announce a Y2K bug.
The next day, panic ensues as members of a corrupt capitalist society profit by devising computer "patches" to make some cash.
One day somewhere within a few weeks, someone calls the "glitch" the Millenium Bug, and this causes millions upon millions to follow their half-assed idiot reasoning.
Thus, everyone believed the millenium started yesterday.

Fourth off, in the massive nation of China, you are age 1 when you are born. Now I know this will screw up your heads, but it's absolutely true.
Fifth off, he doesn't give a damn about you (points at Bad Ass Billy Gunn), he doesn't give a damn about you(points at Road Dogg Jesse James), and I don't think anybody gives a damn about you(points at Binky!
Sixth off, I have a message from the Godfather. he wants you in the back room with the other hoes.

I think that about sums it up ;0
Until I get pissed off again,
-TI-Prime High-Level Infiltration Unit Number 187

     2 January 2000, 21:05 GMT

1  2  3  4  5  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2011, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer